Hi all,

Currently interning with a T-1 disputes team in Delhi. I have noticed that pretty much 9 times out of 10, the partners are briefing senior counsel to appear and argue. The equity partner too does the same and so do the partners under him.

How are they okay to almost never be arguing and always be briefing? Is this professionally satisfying?

Thanks!

T1 partner here... I do not get satisfaction from arguing when I spend most of my time arguing with my colleagues at work

1. Kickback from Seniors (ranges from 10-25%).

2. Stakes being extremely high at a T-1 firm hence engaging a fairly senior counsel makes sense.

3. Lawyers willing to be arguing counsels ether leave before making partner, or leave post partnership t establish chambers

Because the arguing counsel has a higher chance of winning compared to them, not because of intellect but face value as well in front of judge.

And for the firm: Winning > my satisfaction

Simple answer- they do not know the judge but the Senior does

Fee paid to a Senior is the consideration to indemnify Partner if decision of the case is against the Client!

bro the arguing counsel is a senior advocate (designation conferred by court, most likely 20+ years of experience, familiarity with most if not all of the judges that will sit on the bench), and the partner many times has like 10-12 years of experience and a fraction of the credibility in the eyes of the judge.